2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a dispute over stool land revenue between the Duayaw Nkwanta and Yamfo Traditional Councils. The High Court granted an order of mandamus to Duayaw Nkwanta with a proviso but the Yamfo Council appealed. The appeal argued the High Court misapplied its supervisory jurisdiction and mishandled factual disputes. The Court ruled the mandamus order proper but removed the proviso, thus ordering full payment of revenue to Duayaw Nkwanta. The case reaffirmed principles of judicial review, supervisory jurisdiction, and mandamus discretion.
AYEBI J. A.
The term judicial review connotes the exercise by which the superior court re-examines or revises the decisions, orders or judgments of lower courts, government bodies or public institutions and their officers.
It also involves where appropriate a superior court commanding a lower court to exercise its jurisdiction according to law or a public officer or public institution to perform its public duties in accordance with the law.
This power of judicial review also called supervisory jurisdiction is bestowed on the Supreme Court by article 132 and on the High Court by article 141, of the 1992 Constitution.
The instant appeal arose from the application by the Omanhene of the Duayaw Nkwanta Traditional Area to the High Court, Sunyani to order/compel the Administrator of Stool Lands to pay all royalties due him from land occupied by the Interested Party/appellant.
The respondents, the Administrator of Stool Lands and the Regional Stool Lands Officer did not oppose the application by filing any process.
But the Interested Party, the Yamfo Traditional Council, per its president did oppose the application.
The case of the applicant is that the land occupied by the Yamfo chief and his people is his bona fide property.
The people of Yamfo came to live on the land according to history, when Yamfo Dikro, a hunter, requested for a place to live and hunt for the Asantehene.
The Yamfo Stool and its occupants over the years have acknowledged this fact as to the ownership and control of the land by the applicant.
And for over a century now all revenues/royalties accruing from the stool land occupied by the Interested Party and his people were paid to the applicant.
But after the last payment in 2003, the respondents have refused to honour their public duty of payment of the revenue due the applicant despite the demand and reminders.
The motion therefore prayed the High Court for an order of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay the appropriate stool land revenue accruing to the Yamfo stool to the applicant.
As I stated earlier on, the Yamfo stool per its paramount chief Nana Ansah Adu Baah II opposed the application.
He denied the applicant’s claim of ownership of the Yamfo stool lands.
According to him their ancestor Nana Ansah Adu Baah centuries ago founded the land and with the permission of the Asantehene, they settled on it.
Since then they have existed and lived independently of the applicant.
According to the Interested Party, Yamfo